Another accident caught on camera

[GilesM]

Are you both such motorist-lovers that you want to divide-and-conquer cyclists as well as keep defending a substandard motorist who failed to follow the Highway Code? It's ironic that you're berating cyclists for not criticising another cyclist when they do, while blindly refusing to criticise the motorist.

The guy in the video is a nobber on a bike, not a cyclist, now that's clarified, I think you'll find that I have questioned the drivers competence several times, and it's not about motorist loving, or wanting to divide and conquer cyclists, whatever that nonsense is all about, it's about being honest, this guy did something really dumb on a bike, he could have been killed, if he had done the right thing, the accident would not have happened, whether the driver could or could not have avoided him is irrelevant.

 

[GilesM]

If you can't see that the driver was equally culpable, then maybe driving isn't for you. He utterly failed to fulfil his obligations, and so did the cyclist.

If you really believe the driver was equally to blame, then that really is up to you, I am sure there is no point me trying to convince you otherwise, as for whether driving is for me, fortunately somebody with a slightly more balance view of what happens on the roads gets to decide that one. Right now, the sun is shining, the wind isn't blowing too much, I'm off out on my bike, I think I'll keep off of any pavements.

 

[glenn forger]

So if a car is in the wrong place a cyclist can ride into it and not be responsible?

 

[GilesM]

So if a cyclist sees a pedestrian behaving erratically and makes no effort to avoid a collision you would support the cyclist?

You seem to have mixed up the two different types of behaviour, behaving erratically, and being a complete fcukwit.

 

[winjim]

@GilesM your position seems to be rather inconsistent. You claim the incident was 100% cyclist's fault but then say you are also critical of the motorist. You say there are people with whom it is impossible to reason, but come across as rather aggressive yourself. I believe I have made my opinions clear in a reasonable way (with obviously the odd rhetorical flourish). What do you think of my analysis, do you claim that I am defending the cyclist, and why?

 

[glenn forger]

You seem to have mixed up the two different types of behaviour, behaving erratically, and being a complete fcukwit.

Why would you want to argue the difference? There was a collision. It was not unavoidable. You can't answer the question cos it exposes your daft argument, you don't just barge on cos you have priority, that's neanderthal thinking.

 

[GilesM]

@GilesM your position seems to be rather inconsistent. You claim the incident was 100% cyclist's fault but then say you are also critical of the motorist. You say there are people with whom it is impossible to reason, but come across as rather aggressive yourself. I believe I have made my opinions clear in a reasonable way (with obviously the odd rhetorical flourish). What do you think of my analysis, do you claim that I am defending the cyclist, and why?

I'm not in anyway inconsistent, I have no doubt that the person at fault is the nobber on the bike, but a better driver may have avoided the accident, that to me seems to be quite a sensible view, as for you analysis, it was lovely, however, I am not sure whether you are defending the nobber on the bike or not, when I ask directly if you thought he was 100% to blame for the accident, you didn't want to answer that direct question.

 

[GilesM]

Why would you want to argue the difference? There was a collision. It was not unavoidable. You can't answer the question cos it exposes your daft argument, you don't just barge on cos you have priority, that's neanderthal thinking.

I didn't answer the question because it was so general it made no sense, as for barging on just because you have priority, I agree that's\wrong, but not anticipating a bit of complete stupidity until it's too late is really just an unfortunate mistake.

 

[winjim]

I'm not in anyway inconsistent, I have no doubt that the person at fault is the nobber on the bike, but a better driver may have avoided the accident, that to me seems to be quite a sensible view, as for you analysis, it was lovely, however, I am not sure whether you are defending the nobber on the bike or not, when I ask directly if you thought he was 100% to blame for the accident, you didn't want to answer that direct question.

If a better driver may have avoided the accident, then doesn't it follow that the driving of the motorist in the video was at best less than perfect and he should therefore take some of the blame?

You say my analysis is lovely. I don't know what that means. You obviously don't agree with it.

I didn't answer your question firstly because I believe I have already answered it upthread and don't want to carry on repeating myself, and secondly because the answer is not relevant to the subject of whether I am defending the cyclist. You claimed people were defending him, I wondered who you thought those people were, whether you included me among them, and if so why.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

neither car driver nor cyclist/bearded hipster showed any anticipation whatsoever. the cyclist/bearded hipster may have the excuse that he's never learned the rules of the road, the car driver can't say the same…

 

[Phil Fouracre]

Blimey! An incident like this getting to eleven pages, scary! I don't know, but, it's really got to be the clown on the bikes fault. Yes the driver should check when turning into the side road, BUT, the pavement went round to the left, the cyclist was alongside, illegally riding on the pavement, obviously completely ignored the car, even though he was going to transit from the pavement straight into the path of the car.
I'd like to think that, as a cyclist I would keep a careful eye on him, but, you really have got to be realistic. I've always tried to ride defensively, and, yes, it's worked ok for the last forty years. It's very unrealistic to assume anything about other road users; I've always defaulted to the assumption that they are trying to kill you :-)

 

[Moderators]

After 11 pages it appears the discussion is just going round in circles.

Time to agree to disagree. Thread locked.